Long County GA Croynism & Nepotsim

The defendants knowingly devised an employment scheme, consisting of political patronage, and referred to in this complaint as a “Friends and Family Plan”, which violated the State of Georgia Code of Ethics Code for government services (O.C.G.A. 45-10-1, II, V, IX, X), created conflicts of interests, defrauded Long County Tax payers out of millions of dollars, and deprived Plaintiffs of their right to “honest services” , and unjustly enriched family and friends that are members of the nepotism/ cronyism ring, and violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupted Organization Act.

CLAIM II

In direct violation of the new Conflict of Interest Statute, referenced as Official Code Georgia Annotated, (O.C.G.A.) 45-10-80, the Long County Probate Judge appointed Craig Nobles to replace his father as sheriff, in the same Department which his mother presides as administrator.

CLAIM III

Long County Commissioners, allowed the existence of Political Patronage to include nepotism and cronyism to infest the entire Long County Local Government arena, in total disregard of the Georgia State Code of Ethics, the new conflict of interest law, and the Federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupted Organizations Act.

FACTS SUPPORTING CLAIMS

Ethics are Historic

§ 45-10-1. Establishment and text of code of ethics for government service generally

There is established for and within the state and for and in all governments therein a code of ethics for government service which shall read as follows:

CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE

Any person in government service should:

II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and the State of Georgia and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not, and never accept, for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.

IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.

O.C.G.A. 45-10-80
45-10-80. Public officers prohibited from advancing, employing, or advocating the employment of family members
(a) A public officer, as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (22) of Code Section 21-5-3, is prohibited from advocating for or causing the advancement, appointment, employment, promotion, or transfer of a member of his or her family, as such term is defined in Code Section 21-5-3, to an office or position to become a public employee, as defined in paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of Code Section 45-1-4, that pays an annual salary of $10,000.00 or more or its equivalent.
(b) Any person advanced, appointed, employed, promoted, or transferred in violation of this Code section shall not be entitled to any payment, salary, or benefits received for any position so illegally obtained; and any person who receives payment, salary, or benefits for a position obtained in violation of this Code section shall be required to reimburse the state for all amounts so received.

CLAIM I

The defendants knowingly devised an employment scheme, consisting of political patronage, and referred to in this complaint as a “Friends and Family Plan”, which violated the State of Georgia Code of Ethics Code for government services (O.C.G.A. 45-10-1, II, V, IX, X), created conflicts of interests, defrauded Long County Tax payers out of millions of dollars, in which Plaintiff tax dollars were included, and deprived Plaintiffs of their right to “honest services” , and unjustly enriched family and friends that are members of the nepotism/ cronyism ring, and violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupted Organization Act.

1. The recently deceased Sheriff of Long County, Cecil Nobles hired his wife Peggy Nobles to work under him as his administrator, giving her a badge number of LCC01; He hired his son to work for him as a Deputy Sheriff with a badge number of S781-W.

Although the website copy, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit No. One (1), notes that he was a deputy in the K-9 Unit. During the illness of his father, he was subsequently promoted to the rank of Lieutenant.

An article previously printed in the local Savannah News, attached as Plaintiff Exhibit Two (2), gives additional light to the conduct of the Political Patronage in action by the late Cecil Nobles testifying in court that he endorsed Nunnally and Middleton, admitting to typing ballots and having his deputies stuff endorsement letters in the Sheriff substation for their candidacy.

With this unchecked political patronage, power, and influence of this “friends and Family Circle, Cecil backed candidates generally win elections.

2. When Middleton, won the election as Clerk of Long County Court, according to the news article from Savannah Morning News, (see Plaintiff Exhibit Three (3) . He is quoted as saying, “Even though it’s a county job, I’m the supervisor. I hire whoever I want.”

Mary Odum confirmed that the County Departments hire their own staff. There is no “human resource” that handles hiring at a central point.

Therefore, he didn’t advertise the jobs. Yet, he hired his wife, daughter, and niece to work under him. See Plaintiff Exhibit Four (4). This conduct is a clear violation of the Code of Ethics of the State of Georgia, and clearly a conflict of interest. I can go on and on with the Friends and Family that encompass each county department. Note also the Middleton’s hired as Deputy Sheriffs.

3. Cecil Nobles was entrusted with power as a constitutional officer of the state, and he like Middleton perverted into a tyranny, in violation of the RICO ACT.

4. The County employees see no wrong because many of them benefit from the Family and friends Scheme.

5. The scheme has fraudulently deprived the plaintiff’s as tax payers in the county, of the intangible right to honest services, especially by sworn constitutional officials.

6. Plaintiff contends that the fundamental role of statutory construction is to ascertain intent of legislature in enacting law and construing so as to give effect to this intent.

CLAIM II

In direct violation of the new Conflict of Interest Statute, referenced as Official Code Georgia Annotated, (O.C.G.A.) 45-10-80, as well as the Georgia Code of Ethics O.C.G.A. 45-10-1, the Long County Probate Judge appointed Craig Nobles to replace his father as sheriff, in the same Department which his mother presides as administrator.

2. His appointment to the position of Sheriff to fill his father’s position, by Judge Marie Middleton is clearly a continued conflict of interest. It’s further evidence that the Long County Officials are operating without checks and balances, and in total disregard of the Laws of the State of Georgia. (see Plaintiff Exhibit #5)

3. Judge Middleton is a Judge,and she is aware of the laws of the State of Georgia. Yet, she shows total disregard for Georgia State Ethics Code, as well as Laws of the State of Georgia.

4. She needs to be removed from office. It’s time for the political patronage to end. Yet, as Judge, she keeping the cycle rotating.

5. Plaintiff contend that the Conflict of Interest Law, which together with the Code of Ethics serves as the state’s anti-nepotism statutes’ and that said statutes should be construed in light of its purpose to discourage political patronage to include cronyism and nepotism by public officers in appointing others to positions.

6. Plaintiff contends that Craig’s appointment to replace his father as Sheriff should be nullified, and that his position as a Sheriff Deputy should be terminated with a bar to future employment for the Sheriff Department. His mother is currently the Administrator over the Sheriff Department.

7. Plaintiff reiterate that the fundamental role of statutory construction is to ascertain intent of legislature in enacting law and construing so as to give effect to this intent; and legislative intent is determined from language of statute in light of its general purpose. Therefore, presumption arise that legislature expressed its intent in statute, and it intended what it expressed.

8. The Nobles, like the Middleton’s are being unjustly enriched by Plaintiff’s in conjunction with other tax payers, via Long County Tax Revenue, and in violation of the laws of the State of Georgia.

CLAIM III

Long County Commissioners, in conjunction with Judge Marie Middleton allowed the existence of Political Patronage to include nepotism and cronyism to infest the entire Long County Local Government arena, in total disregard of the Georgia State Code of Ethics and the new conflict of interest law, and the Federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupted Organizations Act.

The Long County Commissioners as overseer s of Long County municipality did nothing to stop the political patronage that continues to infest the county government departments.

Citizens of the County elected the officials to run/operate the county, and represent their interest, the County Commissioners swore under oath to uphold the constitution as well as Laws of the state etc… Yet , they each derelict their duties to the plaintiff’s by sitting by idle while officials employed for the benefit of the county openly violate state law to include ethics, and unjustly enriched their family and friends with Plaintiffs, and others similar situated property tax proceeds .

Disturbing is the fact that Judge Middleton is a Judge. Therefore, she is aware of the laws of the State of Georgia. Yet, she shows total disregard, and openly violate the Georgia State Ethics Code, as well as Laws of the State of Georgia.

EXTRA

As noted by attached exhibit six (6) correspondence from state officials, Plaintiff’s has tried without success to have the local officials investigated by state officials to no avail. Plaintiff has repeatedly notified the Local Solicitor General for Long County, as well as the local District Attorney Tom Durden to no avail. There exist no known channel whereby constituents of the State of Georgia can file a grievance, when the local and district channels for such grievances is either broken, or corrupted, as in this case. (SEE Correspondence @exhibit 6)

The local district attorney Tom Durden was publicly cited for public intoxication while driving under the influence of substance abuse, as noted by the article from the Bryan County News. (See Plaintiff exhibit #7)

As for indictments against public officials for alleged corrupted acts by the local district attorney Tom Durden, it visibly appears that two public officials have been indicted, both were African American. One was a female who was sentenced to thirty plus years, for conduct that is not near as pervasive as the conduct engaged in by the local officials in Long county local government. The other individual was an African American male, former Sheriff of McIntosh County. His case I believe is still pending. Plaintiff’s complaints to the local solicitor general and the local district attorney regarding the conduct of officials in Long County have falling on deaf ears, and blind eyes.

APPROPRIATENESS OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed this complaint due to sheer outrage at the overt and flagrant violation of state laws and ethics, by local county officials. I plaintiff since May 2011 havebeen repeatedly fighting rigorously against political patronage, specifically nepotism and cromyism in Long County Government,

Hearing about the appointment of Craig Nobles to replace his father as Sheriff of long County by Long County Judge Marie Middleton, was clearly the “straw that broke the camel’s back”. It’s without question that I had to take extraordinary measure i.e file action in court, to address my complaint as a tax payer of the county.

It.’s clearly a disturbing, unending scheme by the Family and Friend Plan, to keep the cycle of political patronage in effect, and continually defraud the tax payers of honest services, as well as unjustly enrich members of the regime with county tax revenue proceeds, paid for by tax payers..

Most important is the fact that, there exist no known channel whereby constituents of the State of Georgia can file a grievance, when the local and district channels for such grievances is either broken, or corrupted, as in this case. (SEE Correspondence @exhibit 6)

In addition, Plaintiff is a tax payer in Long County; and Plaintiff fiancé purchased a home in 2009 in Long County. He continues to pay for the home, without being able to enjoy it. Plaintiff challenged court action by the Long County Court, and as a direct result of such challenge, was looked upon as a trouble maker.

Plaintiff later learned from a group of Caucasian individuals fighting against the Nepotism in Long County that, “It is common practice in the county that and individual is not to challenge decisions made in their courts, and if you challenge decisions made in their courts, the Family and Friends regime will come against you and make life miserable for you and your family.”; Ultimately, this group of individuals were correct. The Family and Friends regime started to attack my two minor children in various ways. I was subjected to repeated Road Blocks at the entrance of the Road to my home etc…

As a direct result of their conduct, in concert, Plaintiff left the home that was newly purchased for her, and allowed a relative to remain there. Plaintiff then moved closer to the north, where her children are free from harassment from the Family and Friends Regime.

Plaintiff continues her works in conjunction with the Anti-Nepotism group of local citizens to bring awareness to the corruption scheme in Long County, whenever time permits.

Plaintiff, as a direct result of the .Friends and family ring has been deprived of honest services by the local government. Plaintiff was unable to enjoy the home she has, and reside peacefully in the county without undue harassment toward her minor children.

Disturbing is the fact that these defendants are being unjustly enriched with tax payer revenue and causing high levels of mental anguish to me, as a former resident of the county.

Plaintiff is seeking outside assistance to restore integrity and public confidence in the local county government practices; and seeking a fair and open market for employment free from unlawful, and unfair practices, as currently engaged in by county officials.

The State Officials are fully aware of the public corruption by officials in Long County Government. Only federal intervention can bring a stop to the generational nepotism/ cronyism ring that continues in cycles in Long County Government.

Plaintiff complaint clearly targets an abnormal segment of American Society that has operated in total disregard of State Laws and rules of criminal and civil procedure, in violation of the State Code of Ethics for Government Service, as well as in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupted Organizations Act. See also previous filings of Sandra Jones listing additional misconduct by this regime, of Family and Friends.

Examples of some of the harassment against me and children are listed in the cases file in this court under my name.

Relevant Case Law Excerpts@copy/paste:

RICO claims purport violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and 1962(d). We first tackle the § 1962(c) claims. To prove a violation of § 1962(c), a plaintiff must establish that there has been (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity. See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S.Ct. 3292, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). A pattern of racketeering activity consists of at least two predicate acts of racketeering committed within a ten-year period. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).

The Supreme Court long ago made clear that the statutory definition of a pattern — two racketeering acts within ten years — did "not so much define a pattern of racketeering activity as state a minimum necessary condition for the existence of such a pattern." H.J. Inc. v. N.W. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 237, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989).

To establish a pattern of racketeering activity, a plaintiff must show continued criminal activity (or the threat thereof) and relationship between the predicate acts — a standard commonly dubbed the "continuity plus relationship" test. See id. at 239, 109 S.Ct. 2893.

A plaintiff may demonstrate a closed period of continuity by proving a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time. Id. at 242, 109 S.Ct. 2893. On the other hand, an open-ended period of racketeering is a course of criminal conduct that lacks the duration and repetition to establish continuity. A plaintiff may nevertheless satisfy continuity by showing past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition. See id.To summarize, a RICO plaintiff can satisfy the continuity prong either by (1) demonstrating a close-ended series of conduct that existed for such an extended period of time that a threat of future harm is implicit, or (2) an open-ended series of conduct that, while short-lived, shows clear signs of threatening to continue into the future. See Midwest Grinding Co. v. Spitz, 976 F.2d 1016, 1023 (7th Cir.1992).

This court has analyzed continuity under a multifactor test, in which we consider (1) the number and variety of predicate acts and the length of time over which they were committed, (2) the number of victims, (3) the presence of separate schemes, and (4) the occurrence of distinct injuries. See Morgan v. Bank of Waukegan, 804 F.2d 970, 975 (7th Cir.1986). No one factor is dispositive of a claim. Olive Can Co. v. Martin, 906 F.2d 1147, 1151 (7th Cir.1990). Rather, our analysis of the continuity prong is fact-specific and undertaken with the goal of achieving a "natural and commonsense" result, consistent with Congress's concern with long-term criminal conduct. See id.; see also Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merch. Servs., Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 780 (7th Cir.1994) (citations omitted); Sutherland,882 F.2d at 1204.

Although a RICO pattern may be established on the basis of a single scheme, "it is not irrelevant, in analyzing the continuity requirement, that there is only one scheme." Sutherland, 882 F.2d at 1204 (citing H.J. Inc.,492 U.S. at 240, 109 S.Ct. 2893); U.S. Textiles, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch Co., 911 F.2d 1261, 1269 (7th Cir.1990).

WHEREFORE Plaintiff’s respectfully request of this court to:

1. Issue an order to the Defendants, on Behalf of the plaintiff’s as a tax payer of Long County, nullifying the unlawful appointment of Craig Nobles as Sheriff.

2. Award Plaintiff $350,000. for the intentional violations, as cited in this complaint against the Plaintiff as a Tax Payer in Long County.

3. Enlist the help of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Public Corruption Division to unravel the corruption ring that exists in Long County Government that infringes on the rights of Tax payers to receive honest services from locally elected officials, to restore confidence and integrity back in the local government of Long County.